Innocent Smoothies

I agree that politicians don't "get" the fact that if you want to support industry and commerce it is the SME sector (small and medium sized) they need to worry about. But they are wined, dined and lobbied by big business and like the headlines when 100 jobs are created in one go.
In NZ it is much less in the thrall of multinational brands. e.g. only one or two international coffee chain cafes in Wellington that probably has hundreds of coffee shops. But I fear John Keys's government does not really "get it" either as he worked in international currency trading before moving to politics.

So anyone who cares needs to mobilise their MP on the subject, I guess.

i am not anti profit, never have been, never will be and have certainly not aid I am on Gransnet, but I am concerned by the monopoly power of large international conglomerates. Many have larger turnovers than some medium sized countries and as we have seen in the Kraft takeover of Cadburys they frequently make promises during the takeover negotiations that are discarded as soon as the deal is made. The manufacture of brands get shifted round the world and many iconic British food brands like HP Sauce are no longer manufactured in the UK. They have the power with the supermarkets to make and break smaller companies.

There is more than one way for an entrepreneur to liquidise their investment in a company they have built up. The best route is not necessarily waiting for a multinational to approach you. The deal they offer may not be the best one available. Companies can be floated as public companies and money extracted that way, they can merge with others, before or after floating, they can find an individual entrepreneur prepared to invest in the company by buying shares and there are investment companies who buy small companies, build them up, merge them strategically and then float them or find private buyers for them.

I have heard a programme on Radio 4 in the last few days, that frustratingly I cannot locate, where a speaker was discussing a movement towards an economy based on medium sized companies and employee cooperatives and discussing studies that have shown that this can be a more efficient and profitable way of doing business and better for national economies.

The only time I have worked for a profit making business was when I worked in shops/ cafe as a student so not highly involved so I do not claim to know much about the world of business. I know it is necessary for the economy..except the world is in a mess, economically speaking.

However it appears to me that it has become the case that it is difficult for smaller companies, that provide the consumer with choices about products and the 'ethics' behind them to carry on. If businesses are 'forced' /persuaded etc to sell out to the giants then I think that is disappointing as it reduces choice and puts even more power into fewer places.

Can the economists out there give me their opinions on whether it is better to have choice and diversity of products via smaller businesses or should we be pleased that the likes of Unilever et al have it all sewn up?

Why should we be anti- profit Flicketyb?
Without profits there would be no products on the market, a serious problem with taxation revenues and no pension schemes.

Perhaps we are too easily deceived by the clever, supposedly 'clean' marketing ploys that companies such as Innocent would appear to have been using. Perhaps, in being disappointed we are being naive.

So what would you suggest people do when they want to sell a business? Should they not sell to the highest bidder? If making money by doing business is not intrinsically wrong, then presumably selling the business in the best possible way when you feel you've done enough with it is not intrinsically wrong too? In which case, feeling 'disappointed' (some posters have expressed disappointment) that this is what happens, seems a bit unrealistic.

Most people who sell their house take the highest (or the safest) bid, don't they? What's the difference?

Well. I have read through this thread and I cannot see a single post that is even elliptically anti profit. To be sad to see a small and distinctive company gobbled up by a big multinational is not the politics of envy.

Companies, like Green & Blacks and the Body Shop did pride themselves on not being main stream, they both supported fair trade and other ethical values and sort to differentiate themselves from the big battalions - and then sold out to them. I do not begrudge them the money I do resent being drawn into buying products from companies who present certain values as core to their business Core values that are so lightly held that they are quickly dumped when the price is right.

Yes, when these companies are taken over, the management and employees continue to work for the company, but usually within a year or so all the key managers have gone and the holding company has moved in its own managers and its own culture.

What is worrying is that while the food and household product companies buy up more and more companies the consumer see more and more brands in the supermarkets giving an impression of a wide range of companies jostling for our money and competing to get it when actually most of these brands are owned by a small number of big companies. Many of them have close to a monopoly in their product areas and can manipulate prices to drive smaller brands out of the market. Most of us are aware that the main supermarkets target the basics, bread, milk, cheap ready meals when competing on price and make up for it by charging more for the other goods in their stores. Over recent years a number of people have shopped for a basketful of goods in the main supermarkets and in local shops and found they saved both money and time by shopping locally.

No, they didn't claim to be innocent themselves......my (rather obscure) point being that in business how can you be? As others have said, the purpose of going into business is to make money. They've done that brilliantly and good luck to them!

I think the young men who started the company all have family backgrounds with big business /finance connections so they were in it for the money..why else?

absent I buy smoothies if I am out and about with my work as I find them refreshing and tasty and I am far too disorganised to make a flask!!

Did Innocents' owners ever claim to be innocent themselves? I thought it was just their product that was innocent of additives – just made from innocent fruits.

When the Innocent entrepreneurs devised their product, its name, the company's values and its marketing strategy, I doubt their decisions were based on how good it made them feel about themselves.

It's more likely that they identified a gap in the drinks market that could be fed into the growing willingness of consumers to pay a little more money for a 'wholesome' product that supported their 'lifestyle' aspirations. After a wobbly beginning, they have made a brilliant success of their brand.

Good for them, I applaud their sucess. Very clever business people, but surely, not so innocent?

I read some time back that 'Prets' chicken comes frozen from Brazil ...... not quite the image that they promote.

Agreed about the possible consequences of a change in the business ethos, jane. Even a perceived change in ethos would affect the employees in a subtle way, and MrBags has certainly seen a large actual change when a company he worked for (whose ethos he loved) was bought out by a larger enterprise. The company lost its personal feel and the employees, who had felt 'considered' by the management before, began to feel they had just become cogs in a large machine. And that was without a change of manager!

But that's how the cookie crumbles.

I don't eat much fruit as a rule, but I do find one of the small Innocent smoothies very refreshing after (or during!) a stint of scything or hedging on a warm day. Scythers used to drink home-made lemonade or cider, I think .

I can't understand why anyone should buy smoothies in the first place.

I agree with you Bags about the point of a business is to make a profit, and Coca-cola by buying Innocent are just increasing their market share and selling to people who might not otherwise buy their products. If Coca-cola themselves were to market a 'healthy' drink no-one would believe them, would they? They needed the Innocent name for credibility.
However I am not sure about the effect on the small company. Management and employees may remain the same, but possibly the ethos changes and the employees are no longer working for the employer they can identify with, but a faceless corporate with different priorities.
I never liked Innocent anyway. Yes the drinks were healthy in the sense that there were no additives, but as Eloethan says, full of sugar, so their marketing was no more ethical than many large companies.

I thought the whole point of setting up a business to sell something was to make a profit. Obviously it's nice if the product is a good one (and lots of people seem to think the Innocent smoothies are a good product though some 'have issues' about the sugar content of fruit (that's the fruits' problem, not the smoothie-makers since they aren't adding any more sugar)), but I suspect the profit motive is just as important to the entrepreneurs as people's feelings about their porduct. If their product hadn't taken off successfully, they'd have sold out yonks ago.

Seems to me, the main issue is envy about someone else's success story, plus a dislike of capitalism which, whether we like it or not, is one of the main things our civilisation depends on. No, I'm not defending the multinationals, just acknowledging that small businesses work on the same basic principles as the big ones.

Usually, all that changes when a company is bought up like this, is the name of the owners. All the other management and employees remain the same.

It frequently seems that no matter how successful a company or an individual is, they are quite willing to sell themselves off to the highest bidder. I notice this with famous (and seemingly well respected) people who are quite happy to front adverts for life insurance policies (many of which have been discredited), same day loan companies, etc., etc.

So far as Innocent is concerned, the marketing implied that Innocent drinks were "healthy" drinks but I read in a newspaper article that they contain 6 tsps. of sugar - so not that healthy!

I think people who object to the power of the huge multi-nationals will always feel peeved, sad and unhappy about takeovers of smaller businesses. It all feels a bit greedy that a few companies own so many! I do think that the richer /bigger multinationals get the more they control..in terms of power in developing countries etc. as well as withing the Western world. I always feel it is a bit insidious.

I'm disappointed by this. But the worst one for me was discovering that Stella McCartney - vegetarian designer who prides herself on not using fur or leather in any of her range - allows her perfume to be made by L'Oreal - tests on animals. That really is a sellout

I agree. The brand will not be untainted for some people though.
But, well I go to Pret because their sandwiches are much nicer than any other packaged sandwiches and their staff are brilliant. They have retained their core strengths.

If Coca Cola have any sense (and they do seem to be a fairly market savvy company), they'll use the strengths of the Innocent brand and not change its image. Much easier than trying to compete with something similar that they have to start from scratch.

sorry... from anyone

Can't say I'd ever noticed Innocent dissociating themsleves with anyone. Did they really say negative things about other companies or just blow their own trumpet? They certainly promoted pure smoothies rather well.

Mine was a more general comment than specifically aimed at Innocent Smoothies. The owners of Innocent are relatively young, 30s/40s, so I doubt they will do nothing for the rest of their lives, probably start a new business.

But we do have these companies, names already mentioned, who take the high moral ground while they build their company, which attracts customers that share the moral values the company claims to espouse then sell out to one of the big companies they have been disassociating themselves from while building the business. It leaves an unpleasant taste, and that applies to smoothies. I tried a smoothie once, no idea what brand, and I disliked it intensely.